AFFAIRE KULIKOWSKI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE
- Instanță
- CtEDO
- Concluzie
- Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt
AFFAIRE KULIKOWSKI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE (CtEDO, 2013)
Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)190 Treisprezece cauze împotriva Poloniei Executarea hotărârilor Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului Cerere Cauza Hotărârea Definitivului la 18353/03 KULIKOWSKI 19/05/2009 21/12/2010 19/08/2009 21/03/2011 2815/05 ANTONICIELLI 19/05/2009 19/08/2009 41373/04 ARCI 2015/17SKI 15/09/2009 15/12/2009 9566/10 DOMBROWSKI 18/10/2011 18/01/2012 35916/08 KORGUL 17/04/2012/2012 18063/07 MIROSŁAW WOJCIECHOWSKI 20/12/2011 20/12/2011 7272/09 NOWASZEWSKI 27/03/2012/1756/06 SZPARAG 05/10/2010 05/10/2010 40459/05 URBANOWICZ 05/10/2010 05/10/2010 648/02 JAN ZAWADZKI 06/07/2010 06/10/2010 16286/07 WLODARCZYK 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 308/04 WERSEL 13/12/2011 22183/06 SZUBET 05/07/07/2012 (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 26 septembrie 2013, la cea de-a 1179-a reuniune a delegaților miniștrilor) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede monitorizarea de către Comitet a executării hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "Convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârile definitive care au fost transmise de Curte Comitetului în cauzele de mai sus și încălcările constatate care reamintesc obligația statului pârât, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum ; și măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare care au invitat guvernul din statul membru în cauză să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligațiilor După ce a examinat bilanțul de acțiune furnizat de guvern indicând măsurile adoptate pentru a executa hotărârile, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013) 571 ; și având certitudinea că au fost adoptate toate măsurile impuse prin art. 46 alineatul (1), DECLARĂ quasures și-a îndeplinit funcțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din convenție în aceste cazuri și DECIDE d . Acțiune Report [1] Information about the Measures to comply with the judgments in cases Kulikowski against Poland, Antonicelli against Poland, Jan Zawadzki against Poland, Wersel against Poland, Arciński against Poland, Urbanowicz against Poland, Szparag against Poland, Włodarczyk against Poland, Mirosław Wojciechowski against Poland, Korgaul against Poland, Nowaszewski against Poland, Dombrowski against Poland, Szubert against Poland (în limba engleză) Case descriere Dombrowski, application No. 9566/10, judgment of 18/10/2011, final on 18/010/2012 Nowaszewski, application No. 7272/09, judgment of 27.03.2012, final on 27/06/2012 Korgul, application No. 35916/08, judgment of 17.04.2012, final on 17.07.2012 Mirosław Wojciechowski, application No. 18063/07, judgment of 20/12/2011, final on 20/030/2012 Włodarczyk, aplicația nr. 16286/07, judgment of 11/10/2011, final on 11/012012 Szparag, aplicația nr. 17656/06, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011 Urbanowicz, aplicația nr. 40459/05, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011 Antonicelli, aplicația nr. 2815/05, judgment of 19/05/2009, final on 19/08/2009 Arciński, cererea nr. 41373/04, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 15/12/2009 Wersel, aplicare nr. 305/85/04, judgment of 13/09/2011, final on 13/12/2011 Kulikowski, aplicare nr. 18353/03, judgment of 19/05/2009, final on 19/08/2009 Jan Zawadzki, aplicare nr. 648/02, judgment of 06/07/2010, final on 06/10/2010 Szubert, aplicare nr. 22183/06, judgment of 05/07/2012, final on 05/10/2012/2012 The above cases în ceea ce priveste încălcarea regulilor de aplicare a legii privind drepturile de acces la dreptul de acces la dreptul suprem Court due to the domestic pendeâlure to instruct the applicants on their further procesual rights in case of the refuzal of legal-aid lawyers to asist them in filing and lodging casation appeals on account of lack of prospects of succesor (violations of Article 6 alin. (1) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 alin. (3) (c)). The European Court noted in the abovetioned cases that when notificated of a legal-aid lawyers rendal to prepare a casation appeal, it was entirely requirements, that an appeal scurt informated to an apelant what further procedural options were available to him or her, namely that the time-Limit for lodging a casation appeal started to run on the date when he or she was served with the lawyers refuzal. The failure of the Courts to information the applicants, who were not represented by lawyers, of their procesdural rights meant that they had no way of knowing that they had a new time-frame within which to find a lawyer who might be persuaded to file cassation appeal on their behalf. In the cases: korgul and Szubert The aplicants were given erroreous information about the time-limit for lodging appeal in case of the refuzal of legal-aid lawyers to asist them in filing and lodging casation appeals on account of lack of prospects of succesor. In the Wersel Căsuța nu a fost dată de către Regional Court să refuze să acorde asistență asistenței suplimentare acordate de autoritățile locale pentru două zile înainte de expirarea termenului limită pentru submission of his cassation appeal. In view of the Court, the shortness of the time left to the applicant for a supporting a lawyer of his choice and for preparing the intended cassation appeal did not give give him a realistic oportunity of having his case brought to and defended in the cassation pende in a căsuța Court also found încălcări of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of unreasonable length of detention on remand. Individual measures The European Court awarded the aplicants with just satisfaction in respect of non-material damage. Details of just satisfaction paid to the following aplications: Dombrowski, application No. 9566/10, judgment of 18/10/2011, final on 18/01/2012/2012 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 2,000 EUR Paid on 20/02/2012/ Nowaszewski, application No. 7272/09, judgment of 27/03/2012/2012, final on 27/06/2012 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 1,000 EUR 100 EUR 1 100 EUR Paid on 21/05/2012/Korgul, application No. 35916/08, judgment of 17/04/2012/2012 final on 17/07/2012 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 2,000 EUR Paid on 02/100/2012 Mirosław Wojciechowski, application No. 18063/07, judgment of 20/12/2011, final on 20/030/2012 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 1,000 EUR Paid on 02/03/2012 Włodarczyk, application No. 16286/07, judgment of 11/10/2011, final on 11/012012 Pecuniary damage Non-peniary damage Costs and exposes Total 1,000 EUR Paid on 21/12/2011 Szparag, application No. 17656/06, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 1,000 EUR Paid on 15/12/2010 Urbanowicz, application No. 40459/05, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 1,000 EUR 1 000 EUR Paid on 15/12/2010 Arciński, aplicația nr. 41373/04, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 15/12/2009 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 1,000 EUR Paid on 25/02/2010 Wersel, aplicația nr. 305/97/04, judgment of 13/09/2011, final on 13/12/2011 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Coststs and expenses total 2,000 EUR 2 000 EUR Paid on 16/02/2012/2012 Kulikowski, aplicația nr. 18353/03, judgment of 19/05/2009, final on 19/08/2009 Damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 3,000 EUR 1,150 EUR 4 150 EUR Paid on 09/06/2011 Jan Zawadzki, aplicația nr. 648/02, judgment of 06/07/2010, final on 06/10/2010 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 1,000 EUR 1 000 EUR Paid on 29/12/2010 Szubert, aplicația nr. 22183/06, judgment of 05/07/2012, final on 05/10/2012/2012 Damage No-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 2,000 EUR 2 000 EUR Paid on 20/09/2012/2012 According to Article 126 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a request for a retrospective leave to appeal out of time may be lodged, if a failure to submit an appeal was due to reasons independent from the party (like a failure of the relevant authorities to instruction a party on procedural rights or erroreous information). The request should be lodged within 7 days from the data the circumstances preventing a party from submitting an appeal ceased to exist, together with the appeal. Decision on refuzal to grant a retrospective leave to appeal is subject to appeal. Mr Kulikowski was sended to twelve years August 2002 on 19 decembrie 2002 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary. General Measures Violets of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention injunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) The root of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) in the abovemented judgments was vastly due to the incorect practice of domestic Courts who, when notifying apelants of a legal-aid lawyers rendal to prepare a cassation appeal, did not indicate what further procedural options were available, and in particular mail that the time-limit for lodging appeal start to run on the date of beingserved with the refuzal. It should be noted that, after thefacts of these cases, the Supreme Court gave a series of decisions ruling that in case of a legal-aid lawyers redundal to asistant an apelant in filing and lodging casation appeals because of a lack of prospects of succesor, the apelate Court is obligad to information the apelant about the pozition of his lawyer and the right to lodge a cassation appeed by a lawyer of his own coice and to notify the apelant that the time-limit for lodging a casation appeal started to run on the data of beingserved with the refuzal (see, inter allia : Decision of 26/09/2011 in case No. II KZ 42/11, Decision of 22/12/2009 in case No. III KZ 87/09, Decision of 18/11/2009 in case No. II KZ 54/09, Decision of 12/12/2008 in case No. IV KZ 82/08, Decision of 06/05/2008 in case No. II KZ 16/08). Moreover, in order to avoid similar in the viitor, the translation of points of the Court Căsuța și translatarea unei rubrici de text în Wersel case were publicished on the website of the Ministry of Justice. The judgments of the European Court were also inclusded into the curricula of trenings for judge and prosecutors. Violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention General Measures are examined in the context of the Trzaska group of cases (aplicația nr. 25792/94). În aceste circumstanțe, nu other general measure appears necessary. III. Concluzii ale respondenței state The Government considers that further individual measures are not necessary in the present case and that the general Measures adopted will be sucient to conclusion that Poland has commed with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention in respect to the breach of the Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. [1] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on May 16th 2013.